SingleDad:
BTW, this is an irrational response to my post; I neither mentioned nor alluded to any of the above.
:
OK, logically speaking, logic can’t be (immeadiatly ) perfect.
For logic to be imediatly perfect, 100% of the facts would need to be known, and presented in a totally unbiased fashion.
(its not the process thats imperfect, but our limited ability to use or apply it)
However, you should still always use logic as your base .
It should also be noted, that despite its imperfect applications, logic has always been centuries ahead of religion, and has always been the force that has dragged religion (usually kicking and screaming) into the latest century.
And as for “faith” types…when the alarm clock wakes them up in the morning, they hit the button, because its the logical thing to do, they don’t pray for guidance on how they should end the ringing. When they cross the street, they look both ways, because it’s logical. When they drive to the country, they use a map, not the “good book”, because that’s the logical thing to do. For the most part, the only time they resort to faith, is to tell others how important it is… or in calling others evil godless sinners.
As far as resorting to “logical fallacies” ,“some” of these can be used by the best of us, if their isn’t much else available. In other words, a debate that is too loosely framed, or a debate that has too many variables or is basically “unprovable” . Most of us would’t use these as a proof, but as the best weight available under the circumstances. However, yes, these should be avoided at all cost, if there are logical avenues available. And recognizing, when you are resorting to them is quite important.
I could be wrong…it happend once before…
Man… pressing the button turns the ringing Off!!!
<writing that down>
I gotta try that sometime! 
Peace.
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13
Califboomer:
Duh. Do you think that anyone with a mind actually thinks you are making a valid point here? Stop trying to convince yourself you are (making a valid point).
Sorry, other than that, I’m enjoying this thread 
PeeQueue
Califboomer–God told me that you’re an idiot and that you should stop calling Him.
Willing to accept that on faith?
(I’ll bet plenty of people here will believe!)
Bucky
Oh, well. We can always make more killbots.
{sigh} **SingleDad,**why do you start threads just to abandon them when the going gets tough? Guess you just don’t have the horsepower…
PeeQueue & Bucky:
I noticed neither of you braintrusts answered the questions, either…
::
Califboomer–
-
One person cannot be a braintrust. A braintrust is a group of people.
-
Frankly, I’m not attempting to answer your question. If I respond to every post, this thing will get a little long.
-
So? I notice you didn’t answer my question either.
I claim that my faith says that you are a lout, a boor, unintelligent, and incapable of rational discourse. I don’t have to prove it, it’s my faith. Would this satisfy you as an argument? If not, why should your faith satisfy me.
Bucky
Oh, well. We can always make more killbots.
CalifBoomer:
From Webster’s (the only free online dictionary I know of):
Main Entry: brain trust
Function: noun
Date: 1910
: a group of official or unofficial advisers concerned especially with planning and strategy
I’m not sure what strategy you think we are planning; are you a conspiracy theorist? Or maybe I have the wrong word, since you didn’t put a space between the words.
I didn’t answer “the questions” because there are none - there is only an invitation to a semantics duel, which is not the reason I come to this board.
On another note: I’m not 100% sure of exactly what they are suggesting the difference in meaning is between the examples of Accent in the link provided by the OP. (The one with the switching of accent from ill to friends.) Could someone explain what the difference is?
Thanks,
PeeQueue
The fallacy of accent does not seem to be one of the more important or widespread fallacies.
It usually comes when one person is demonstrating the applicability of a general principle in a specific case, and the second person sees the accent on the special case rather than on the principle.
For instance, we might be discussing Miranda and coerced confessions:
SD: We shouldn’t coerce a confession from a guilty man.
CB: So we should coerce confessions only from an innocent man? Your argument is absurd!
CB obviously viewed SD’s statement as accenting “a guilty man” rather than “coerce a confession.”
(Note: the above conversation is fictional. Any resemblance to any person, living or dead is purely coincedental).
No matter where you go, there you are.
Hehe, nice example. Thanks for illustrating that one; now I get it.
PeeQueue
In the book The Joy of Work, Scott Adams presents his list of “You are Wrong Because”. Basically, he takes examples of faulty logic, and shows by example what happens when you take that logic further. I laugh out loud every time I read the list. Some of examples:
Argument by Bizarre Definition
Example: He’s not a criminal. He just does things that are against the law.
Reaching Bizarre Conclusions Without any Information
Example: The car won’t start. I’m certain the spark plugs have been stolen by rogue clowns.
Taking Things to their Illogical Conclusion
Example: If you let the barber cut your hair, the next thing you know he’ll be lopping of your limbs.
Irrelevant Comparisons
Example: A hundred dollars is a good price for a toaster, compared to buying a Ferrari.
I agree, but even wrong hypotheses have to be based on information. I’m just trying to say that whoever said that science advances funeral by funeral was overly cynical.
“Banned by the Space Pope”
OK. No real reason to answer sarcastic troll-like posts from non-entities (except maybe to kick this thread up to the top again), but here goes:
PeeQueue:
Why, yes, I do. SD would have responded in his usual verbose fashion had he an answer. He loves his logic. Alas, he recognizes the dilemma presented and is not able to successfully attack it.
Bucky:
I’m not sure why you bring in the issue of faith, as it was not a component of this discussion. Your answer is no, I would not accept your testimony that God had spoken to you on faith. For all I know, you’re posting to this message board from inside an institution; and in any event, it would be third party or hearsay evidence, as such, not admissable.
::
CalifBoomer: You’re a troll, and I’m not going to feed you here.
I will respond to any point you make, but only in the BBQ Pit. I’m not interested in ripping off this thread or any other to address your, um, well, I can’t say here, which is why I prefer to take this to the Pit. Post there whatever nitwit half-brain challenge you have to make, and I will address.
I threw the gauntlet once. It lies there as stark testimony to your cowardice.
SingleDad:
You’re so tiresomely predictable. Every time you trap yourself in your own convoluted rhetoric, you want to run away to a new thread and hurl epithets.
Yawn.
::
I just ran out of popcorn.
I believe it was Thomas Kuhn who advance the theory in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. The point, IMHO, was that scientific theory advances when the “old guard” of scientists dies (or retires) and the scientist with new ideas advance to positions of authority.
Even so, science’s pace of a paradigm shift per generation is very fast compared to religion, law and philosophy.
No matter where you go, there you are.
The Fallacy of the Excluded Middle aka Bifurcation aka False Dilemma
This fallacy is exemplified when someone claims there are only two options when a third option may exist.
For instance:
A: The public schools have serious problems.
B: So we should just close down the schools and provide no education!?
In this case, B has created the false dilemma of either accepting the public schools as they are or shutting them down, ignoring the “middle” options of making changes to their operation, or providing an alternative.
Note that this sort of reasoning in not a fallacy when there are exactly two mutually exclusive alternatives:
A: Bill is not alive
B: Bill is therefore dead.
No matter where you go, there you are.
No cat has 8 tails.
All cats have 1 more tail than no cat.
Therefore, all cats have 9 tails.
Heh, heh.
Libertarian,
I thought Peano defined 1+1=2? Aw, hell, it’s all the same in math.
Also, zero is not a natural number, as defined by Peano.
Califboomer wrote:
Umm, try to look up my “Is math truly objective” thread, and see for yourself how purposeless your demand is.
Also, to Singledad and Libertarian, for the “discovery” of mathematics. Does that mean it exists independently of us? If so, is there another medium where ideas can exist, besides human thought?
There’s always another beer.
Beeruser:
First, read Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” for a couple of years; it’ll take that long to understand it. He’s not the clearest writer in the world.
Mathematics is a sent of theorems deduced from a set of axioms. At that level the theorems can be said to be “enfolded” in the axioms. But where do the axioms come from? In Peano’s case, he was trying to find the correct axiom set to justify arithmetic, which already existed.
Arithmetic was not invented from first principles. People developed it from experience (a posteri) and not from the exercise of pure reason (a priori).
Since then, the development of axioms always starts from mathematician’s experience with previous thought; no professional mathematician can possibly work without a thorough grounding in pre-existing theory. The Humean “tablau rasa” never exists in practice.
No matter where you go, there you are.